Posts

Pandemic will just accelerate the change that was already happening.
High Street Retailers will go bust, as they cannot compete with online warehouse operators. Government will have to reduce the business rates significantly and landlords who own the shop buildings will need to reduce the rents they charge. Retailers will need to make changes to the layout of their shops to make them more attractive, as a leisure experience. If they are offering just racks or shelfs of goods, consumers may think they are not getting anything extra than if they bought online.
As more people work from home, they will be available for home deliveries, so online retailers will gain the sales. The high streets where these homeworkers use to work close to will lose sales.
Travel sector including airlines will see many go bust, more so, if there is a second wave of the virus. Holidays based in peoples home countries or in neighbouring countries will be more popular. Caravans, motorhome sales are going to see massive increases, as people want their own clean spaces. And caravan parks will see more demand as a consequence, but will have to update facilities.
Pretty much every sector of the economy is going to see the biggest changes they have ever gone through and in a very short space of time.

This article in the Indy has some interesting views on how Brexit has affected the Uk's response to Covid.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-lockdown-government-death-toll-boris-johnson-a9551516.html

Small attachment to an iPhone that cost £288.00.
I know anything that relates to Apple can be very expensive, but what was the attachment ?
Did you return the attachment product in its original packaging ?
How often do you buy products from Amazon ?
How often do you return products to Amazon ?
Could Amazon believe you are buying products to simply try out for a period, with no intention of keeping the products ?

So I make a post and ask you some questions and you then go in and make a response which deals with something completely different and which ignores the questions which I have asked completely.
I don't see how we can move forward on that basis

Thank you.
First of all, this is not chronology so we don't have any sense of the timeline.
It's still rather complicated – but maybe when you produce a chronology it will come more into focus.
However, there are a few things that we can start to tease out.
You say that you accepted £250 in an offer which was intended to reflect distress. Although you say that you accepted this offer mistakenly, it may well be that you have no further rights on this issue because of course it would have been up to you to understand the situation properly before accepting any kind of financial offer.
However, it would be useful to understand the reach of this offer and so please could you post up the offer letter by uploading it in PDF format.
You say that "high-volume messaging" is not explicitly covered in the terms and conditions – but there may be references to "fair use policy" and it may be an interpretive problem rather than looking for words which specifically match your situation. So it will be helpful to know what words Vodafone were relying upon and also what was the extent of your high-volume messaging. Did they give you any warnings.
You say that they referred to terms and conditions which you did not sign. However, it isn't necessary to sign terms and conditions. We would have to understand more about the context – but generally speaking if there is an agreement which refers to terms and conditions from the outset and you then embark upon the agreement and use the services, then all the signs would be that you've accepted the conditions of use. Signed written terms and conditions are generally speaking only required in contracts for property or copyright or shares.
You say that the contract was put in your sole name despite the fact that the company name was on the agreement. We don't have a chronology so we don't see how long this went on for and you don't explain why you didn't raise any objections to this – or maybe you did?
You say that you have sent Vodafone and Lowell an SAR but "so far" you are waiting for a response. This suggests that you sent the SAR some time ago – but you haven't told us anything about when this might have happened.
You are referring to obligations under the Consumer Rights Act but I'm afraid that these obligations refer to contracts between a trader and a consumer – and you are not trading as a consumer so these probably wouldn't apply to you.
Finally, you are worried about expressing a claim in legal language. If you begin a small claim then you certainly don't need any legal language – and in fact that kind of approach simply gets in the way. Also, it seems to me that you are gearing up to bring a court claim – which is fine, in my book – but you haven't identified your cause or causes of action and you don't have a plan.
I think we need to slow down and have a more careful and methodical look at the situation. Otherwise you're simply going to find yourself in trouble

Recommended Posts

In the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, it is suggested that once a warrant is issued against the debtor for a parking offence, then the vehicle cannot be sold or disposed of prior to levy or removal, until the debt is cleared. This of course leaves innocent people like Ethel and Albert two pensioners, having purchased a vehicle from London with outstanding parking tickets in a terrible and disgusting position.

Along comes a bailiff with ANPR and removes the vehicle. The bailiff then states that the vehicle is subject to outstanding parking tickets, they will not return the vehicle until all the tickets are paid in full including costs of removal, and as such under the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, they do not have clear title, and they are ordered to seek the return of £7500 for their car from the person who they purchased it from, in this case Mr Jones, who in turn sticks two fingers up to Ethel and Albert.

How can it be that innocent people who purchase vehicles with outstanding parking tickets are being subjected to this kind if trauma, it is a terrible [problem], and I cannot imagine that parliament had intended for the bailiffs to interpret the law in the manner they have done. The names used in this story are of course not their real names, but the innocent people concerned are real, and are worried about losing further sums with Newlyn PLC pursing these kinds of dirty tactics. Newlyn PLC have invited the pensioners to take legal action, but are warned that if they dare they will defend it viciously, as they take legal action against them seriously.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A national register for tickets, checkable by registrations should be considered - something that shows up when doing a finance check.

Also

A legal payment method for selling vehicles where the money is forced to go to a national government holding account and any outstanding tickets are paid before funds given to the seller. This would also stop people from doing cash sales from their driveways without telling the tax man about the profit.

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This seems to be talking about the binding effect of an enforcement ower in accordance with section 5 of Schedule 12 to the TCE Act 2007. If so then there should be no problem.

The wording is pasted below and you will note that there is provision in sub-paragraph 2 to protect genuinely innocent purchasers of bound goods so long as they did not know about the binding. If Ethel and Albert are as innocent and ignorant of the binding as you suggest you have the wording to assist them and hopefully you can dial down the anger and angst.

Effect of property in goods being bound

5(1) An assignment or transfer of any interest of the debtor's in goods while the property in them is bound for the purposes of an enforcement power—.

(a)is subject to that power, and.

(b)does not affect the operation of this Schedule in relation to the goods, except as provided by paragraph 61 (application to assignee or transferee).

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prejudice the title to any of the debtor's goods that a person acquires—

(a) where the property in the goods is bound by a writ or warrant, notice that the writ or warrant, or any other writ or warrant by virtue of which the goods of the debtor might be seized or otherwise taken control of, had been received by the person who was under a duty to endorse it and that goods remained bound under it;

(b) where the property in the goods is bound by notice under paragraph 7(1), notice that that notice had been given and that goods remained bound under it.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4)(a) “endorse” in relation to a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, means endorse under that section.

4(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power, the property in all goods of the debtor, except goods that are exempt goods for the purposes of this Schedule or are protected under any other enactment, becomes bound in accordance with this paragraph.

(2)Where the power is conferred by a writ issued from the High Court the writ binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it.

(3)Where the power is conferred by a warrant to which section 99 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) or section 125ZA of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) applies, the warrant binds the property in the goods from the time when it is received by the person who is under a duty to endorse it under that section.

(4)Where sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply but notice is given to the debtor under paragraph 7(1), the notice binds the property in the goods from the time when the notice is given."

If the car was sold after 2, 3 or 4 happened, Ehtel and Albert's recourse is to sue Mr Jones. If it was sold beforehand, the car is theirs.